- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,209
- Reaction score
- 217,709
I am pretty certain that those cameras were filming what happened, but that evidence was one way or another suppressed. Whether he did that during the period between his exiting the apartment shirtless and re-entering, or between his release after the death but before the formal arrest.
Welcome ggeorge … so nice to have another perspective on board!
I’ve done a little reading on external hard drives used with cameras. Apparently they are used due to the limited storage of the recording device attached to the camera. So the images go into the camera, through a recording device, then onto a hard drive. And the hard drive will store far more images than the recording device - so more can be kept to be reviewed/regurgitated at a later date.
The hard drive may have contained footage of previous violence/demeaning behaviour that would have been very revealing? And maybe that footage was suppressed as it didn’t pertain directly to the morning of Lisa’s murder?
For example …
“…… including forcing her to get on her knees and promise she would submit to him.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-e6frg6nf-1226754193763#sthash.CSALtz5i.dpuf
And yes, Brightbird, I think that means that the hard drive would have contained footage that wasn't on the recording device, as the recording device would have been limited in storage capacity whereas the hard drive would have stored a lot more.